Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 19, Issue 10, pp 2921–2947

Functional traits as indicators of biodiversity response to land use changes across ecosystems and organisms

  • Marie Vandewalle
  • Francesco de Bello
  • Matty P. Berg
  • Thomas Bolger
  • Sylvain Dolédec
  • Florence Dubs
  • Christian K. Feld
  • Richard Harrington
  • Paula A. Harrison
  • Sandra Lavorel
  • Pedro Martins da Silva
  • Marco Moretti
  • Jari Niemelä
  • Paulo Santos
  • Thomas Sattler
  • J. Paulo Sousa
  • Martin T. Sykes
  • Adam J. Vanbergen
  • Ben A. Woodcock
Original Paper

DOI: 10.1007/s10531-010-9798-9

Cite this article as:
Vandewalle, M., de Bello, F., Berg, M.P. et al. Biodivers Conserv (2010) 19: 2921. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9798-9

Abstract

Rigorous and widely applicable indicators of biodiversity are needed to monitor the responses of ecosystems to global change and design effective conservation schemes. Among the potential indicators of biodiversity, those based on the functional traits of species and communities are interesting because they can be generalized to similar habitats and can be assessed by relatively rapid field assessment across eco-regions. Functional traits, however, have as yet been rarely considered in current common monitoring schemes. Moreover, standardized procedures of trait measurement and analyses have almost exclusively been developed for plants but different approaches have been used for different groups of organisms. Here we review approaches using functional traits as biodiversity indicators focussing not on plants as usual but particularly on animal groups that are commonly considered in different biodiversity monitoring schemes (benthic invertebrates, collembolans, above ground insects and birds). Further, we introduce a new framework based on functional traits indices and illustrate it using case studies where the traits of these organisms can help monitoring the response of biodiversity to different land use change drivers. We propose and test standard procedures to integrate different components of functional traits into biodiversity monitoring schemes across trophic levels and disciplines. We suggest that the development of indicators using functional traits could complement, rather than replace, the existent biodiversity monitoring. In this way, the comparison of the effect of land use changes on biodiversity is facilitated and is expected to positively influence conservation management practices.

Keywords

BioindicatorsBirdsCarabidsCollembolaFunctional diversityMacroinvertebratesCommunity weighted mean traitStandardized biodiversity monitoring

Abbreviations

mT

Mean trait per community

FD

Functional diversity

LU

Landscape unit

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie Vandewalle
    • 1
    • 3
  • Francesco de Bello
    • 1
    • 2
  • Matty P. Berg
    • 4
  • Thomas Bolger
    • 5
  • Sylvain Dolédec
    • 6
  • Florence Dubs
    • 7
  • Christian K. Feld
    • 8
  • Richard Harrington
    • 9
  • Paula A. Harrison
    • 10
  • Sandra Lavorel
    • 1
  • Pedro Martins da Silva
    • 11
  • Marco Moretti
    • 12
  • Jari Niemelä
    • 13
  • Paulo Santos
    • 11
  • Thomas Sattler
    • 12
  • J. Paulo Sousa
    • 11
  • Martin T. Sykes
    • 3
  • Adam J. Vanbergen
    • 14
  • Ben A. Woodcock
    • 15
  1. 1.Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, UMR CNRS 5553Université Joseph FourierGrenoble Cedex 9France
  2. 2.Institute of BotanyCzech Academy of SciencesTřeboňCzech Republic
  3. 3.Department of Earth and Ecosystem SciencesLund UniversityLundSweden
  4. 4.Department of Animal Ecology, Institute of Ecological ScienceVU University, AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of ZoologyUniversity College DublinBelfield, DublinIreland
  6. 6.Laboratoire d’Ecologie des Hydrosystèmes FluviauxUniversité Lyon 1, UMR CNRS 5023VilleurbanneFrance
  7. 7.Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, UMR 137 BioSol.Centre Ile de France/Universités de ParisBondy CedexFrance
  8. 8.Department of Applied Zoology/HydrobiologyUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany
  9. 9.Department of Plant and Invertebrate Ecology, Centre for Bioenergy and Climate ChangeRothamsted ResearchHarpendenUK
  10. 10.Environmental Change InstituteOxford University Centre for the Environment (OUCE)OxfordUK
  11. 11.Department of Life Sciences, IMAR - Marine and Environment Research CentreUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  12. 12.Research Unit Ecosystem BoundariesBellinzonaSwitzerland
  13. 13.Department of Biological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  14. 14.NERC Centre for Ecology and HydrologyPenicuik, EdinburghUK
  15. 15.NERC Centre for Ecology and HydrologyCrowmarsh Gifford, WallingfordUK